What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Martinus]

I think we are overlooking one big tendency in Civ4 so far.

Civ4 vanilla added only one civ that was not present in Civ3 (the Mali).

All civs added in Warlords were present in Civ3.

At the moment, Civilization 4 is missing 8 civilizations that were present in Civ3:
1) Babylonians
2) Portuguese
3) Dutch
4) Hittites
5) Sumerians
6) Iroquis
7) Byzantines
8) Mayans

Three of these were already confirmed as being in. I think it is therefore reasonable to assume that the remaining 5 will be in as well (maybe replacing Iroquis with Sioux or some generic "Native American" civ).

This leaves two extra civs. I think one of them will be SE Asian/Polynnesian one (Bhurma, Khmer, Vietnam, Polynesians, Malaysians) and one a sub-Saharean African civ (Ethiopia, Abyssinia, Songhai).

 

[Thedrin]

My 6 (not counting the 4, including a native American tribe that are known about):

Austria
Hittites
Maya
Khmer
Sumeria
Zimbabwe or Abyssinia

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.

I'm fairly sure the Celts were initially spread over all of Europe.

I'm not saying that the 'Native Americans' should be included. I'm just saying that it's not an unprecedented/ludicrous situation. As it happens I don't think the Celts should have been included in the last expansion (but they won't be removed so that's irrelevant).

 

[Antilogic]

I think we are overlooking one big tendency in Civ4 so far.

Civ4 vanilla added only one civ that was not present in Civ3 (the Mali).

All civs added in Warlords were present in Civ3.

At the moment, Civilization 4 is missing 8 civilizations that were present in Civ3:
1) Babylonians
2) Portuguese
3) Dutch
4) Hittites
5) Sumerians
6) Iroquis
7) Byzantines
8) Mayans

Three of these were already confirmed as being in. I think it is therefore reasonable to assume that the remaining 5 will be in as well (maybe replacing Iroquis with Sioux or some generic "Native American" civ).

This leaves two extra civs. I think one of them will be SE Asian/Polynnesian one (Bhurma, Khmer, Vietnam, Polynesians, Malaysians) and one a sub-Saharean African civ (Ethiopia, Abyssinia, Songhai).

Officially, the Austrians were all but in the game--they just couldn't get around a hard-coded Civ limit. I think that because they created all the art for them and packaged it with the game, it's a fair assumption they may be included as well. They are probably at least being considered.

As for the "Native American" civ...if you are going to refer to a generic native American civ like that, can you at least specify "Plains Indians"? The Aztecs, Inca, and Maya are also native Americans, and thus it is quite confusing.

If I had to pick SE Asian names, I would pick Khmer or Siam (others have voiced support of them, and unfortunately my expertise is in European and American history). However, I have a list of civs that I also may like to see in, so there are options.

Does anyone think they will heed the Polish petition and give them a slot?

 

[Ramesses 3000]

They should add the Eskimos, their granary could become Ice Fishing Depot, which adds +2 food to snow and Ice tiles! Their unique unit would be Scout with Sled Dogs, who moves 3 tiles! Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss!

 

[flamingzaroc121]

i dont think they would add a generic Native American civ just to avoid offending anyone

 

[Khamul]

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...

I'm not anti-anything. Israel is just too small nation to be in a civilization. Jews do have had influence in world history and politics, but not Israel. Israel would be something like my 100th choice for the new Civ. We already have Judaism as an one of the seven religion, so that's enough.

I think most of the western people are seriously biased. Some people here have said something like "Vietnam/Korea is just like China". That's bullfeathers. In Asia, there have always been lot of more people than in Europe. There has been lot more diverse culture than in Europe - for example, you can look at their languages and religions. We just don't know much about that. We just think that there is China, Japan and India.

I think there definitely should be more Asian civs, at least one. I would like to see Vietnam or Khmer.
There should also be Mayan civ, and Austria. And one from Africa, so maybe Ethiopia.
Poland or Lithuania would be nice too. And maybe Byzant, and one civ from South America.


Well, I guess I'm anti-ignorance, If I have to be anti-something.

 

[gettingfat]

I think most of the western people are seriously biased. Some people here have said something like "Vietnam/Korea is just like China". That's bullfeathers. In Asia, there have always been lot of more people than in Europe. There has been lot more diverse culture than in Europe - for example, you can look at their languages and religions. We just don't know much about that. We just think that there is China, Japan and India.

"All Asians look alike"... I can guarantee this is quite true, especially to Americans. When I was in college two Asian friends (one Chinese, one Vietnamese) and I (Chinese) occasionally used the same card to go into the Athelete Center and we never got caught (OK, we are bad guys). In a class reunion only two years after I graduated, some classmates still mixed me up with another guy from Hong Kong. That was a fairly small class and I don't look anything resembling that guy. I wasn't a quiet person in my class, either. Well, what can you do in a world where Americans are interested only in things directly related to them, and they created Civ series??

 

[Koelle]

Well, what can you do in a world where Americans are interested only in things directly related to them, and they created Civ series??

That's why i see a lot of people here choose Khmer over Vietnam though no one knows anything about the region, just because Khmer sounds more ancient than the popular Viet, who has still been being Viet for thousands years.

 

[Martinus]

I think most of the western people are seriously biased. Some people here have said something like "Vietnam/Korea is just like China". That's bullfeathers. In Asia, there have always been lot of more people than in Europe. There has been lot more diverse culture than in Europe - for example, you can look at their languages and religions. We just don't know much about that. We just think that there is China, Japan and India.

Yeah. People do not realise that the Indian sub-continent itself is about the size of Europe and from a perspective of a person from India, there is about the same difference between various parts of India as there is between, say, France, England, Germany, Spain and Vikings.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yeah. People do not realise that the Indian sub-continent itself is about the size of Europe and from a perspective of a person from India, there is about the same difference between various parts of India as there is between, say, France, England, Germany, Spain and Vikings.

Actually, each region of India (the country) is like another country. People from different parts of India won't understand each other if speaking in their first language. Same with China.

So putting all of India together into one "civilisation" would be the same as putting all of Western Europe into one civilisation, which of course makes sense, for to many outsiders England, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, etc...shares pretty much the same culture and way of thinking, just as some Westerners think about India or China.

 

[Ishon]

Remember that we don't seem to be considering language as an argument in favor of adding X as a civ. The fact that some people in some country don't understand some other people from the same country doesn't mean that the both peoples in that country have the same right to be civs as Germany or France do.

It might sound harsh in the time of political correctness, but I do claim that Germany, France, England played and still do play a more important role in the world, than any part of China or India does. Even in Poland there are ethnic groups who can be hardly understood by an average city dweller. But no, they are not civilizations. Just as the Sioux or Iroquois, Tupi, Inuit, Aborigines or whatever interesting, yet primitive folk should not be civs - also because they were not able to build any sort of civ in-game building :/, not to mention a wonder. Even Barracks seem way too advanced for the Sioux or Aborigines. Sure they did speak separate languages, but there are several thousand languages in the world.

 

[Khamul]

It might sound harsh in the time of political correctness, but I do claim that Germany, France, England played and still do play a more important role in the world, than any part of China or India does.

This is exactly what I meant! European countries played more important role in a European history , but the Europe is not the World. The fact is that in China there have always been much more people compared to Western Europe. So China's history have affected more people than european countries. We westerns just don't know that history, so it's a bit stupid to downplay China and India.

In fact only difference was late 19th century and early 20th century, when european colonialism was most forceful. During that time China and India were playgrounds of European countries (and Japan), but it was a short period of time in all history.

Don't give me wrong, it's ok for me that there is civs like China, India, England and France. But I get maaaaad when peolple say that Korea/Vietnam is just like China. The true diversity in East is much more variable than in Europe.

 

[LAnkou]

I don't know for India, but in China, there has been for a very long time a cultural area known as "chinese" with one leader. Even if there has been different kingdom (sengoku, romance of the three kingdom,...), this area were considered chinese, and people would call themselves chinese.

despite no common language, there was"generally" one ruler, and common culture in this area.

In Europe, except during roman Empire, there wasn't a sole ruler for england, France, Germany, Spain all at once and for a long time. There is different cultures.

In China, if you wrote any word, even if it's pronounce differently from one part to another, people can read it and get the meaning, whereas, in Europe, an english can pronounce a spanish text, but won't understand it.

Civilization (and culture) isn't only a matter of language. or there would be an english civilisation (including USA) and dozens of chinese civilizations.

If you ask a europeen, what he is, he will say english, french or german.
If you ask a chinese, he won't say cantonese, mandarin or anything. He will say that he's chinese.

But i agree that Korea/Vietnam are different from China and shouldn't be considered as chinese

 

[Martinus]

LAnkou, I don't know enough about China to comment, but technically Europe also had a supreme ruler - the Holy Roman Emperor - and you could also communicate in Latin throughout the entire continent.

It could be that someone observing Europe from Chinese perspective would reach the same conclusion as you do about China, whereas in fact, the uniformity would be more illusory.

 

[Chrispy]

I think we are overlooking one big tendency in Civ4 so far.

Civ4 vanilla added only one civ that was not present in Civ3 (the Mali).

All civs added in Warlords were present in Civ3.

At the moment, Civilization 4 is missing 8 civilizations that were present in Civ3:
1) Babylonians
2) Portuguese
3) Dutch
4) Hittites
5) Sumerians
6) Iroquis
7) Byzantines
8) Mayans

Three of these were already confirmed as being in. I think it is therefore reasonable to assume that the remaining 5 will be in as well (maybe replacing Iroquis with Sioux or some generic "Native American" civ).

This leaves two extra civs. I think one of them will be SE Asian/Polynnesian one (Bhurma, Khmer, Vietnam, Polynesians, Malaysians) and one a sub-Saharean African civ (Ethiopia, Abyssinia, Songhai).

Interesting. I also went back and checked the leaderheads for Civ III and noticed there are 7 leaders of existing Civs who haven't been in Civ IV yet:
Lincoln (confirmed for BtS)
Cleopatra
Joan of Arc
Xerxes
Abu Bakr
Pachacuti
Osman

I think Xerxes and Abu Bakr are the most likely from this list (other than the confirmed Lincoln.)

Regarding the Sioux-Iriquois question: there have been requests for the English to be called British depending on the leader. Couldn't they do something similar for a "Native American" category: choose one leader and you play the Sioux; choose another and you play the Iriquois? It would mean they have the same UB and UU, but it seems like a solution.

 

[LAnkou]

LAnkou, I don't know enough about China to comment, but technically Europe also had a supreme ruler - the Holy Roman Emperor - and you could also communicate in Latin throughout the entire continent.

It could be that someone observing Europe from Chinese perspective would reach the same conclusion as you do about China, whereas in fact, the uniformity would be more illusory.

Well, at least England has never been under the holy roman empire rules, neither did France (if you except Charlemagne), and Spain only under Charles V.
That's why, at least in France, we consider that Holy Roman Empire was a kind of "big Germany" before germany really appeared.

 

[SkippyT]

Regarding the Sioux-Iriquois question: there have been requests for the English to be called British depending on the leader. Couldn't they do something similar for a "Native American" category: choose one leader and you play the Sioux; choose another and you play the Iriquois? It would mean they have the same UB and UU, but it seems like a solution.

Then we'd have to make Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, not Russia.
But that does make sence.
I'd love to have a civ that has BOTH Hiawata and Sitting Bull

 

[Martinus]

Well, at least England has never been under the holy roman empire rules, neither did France (if you except Charlemagne), and Spain only under Charles V.
That's why, at least in France, we consider that Holy Roman Empire was a kind of "big Germany" before germany really appeared.

Incorrect. Holy Roman Emperors considered themselves leaders of the Christian world. In fact, a few English Kings actually paid hommage to the Holy Roman Emperors.

Besides, my point is that, while these distinctions are visible and clear to us, similar distinctions could have applied to China only that you or I do not know enough about the history and the region to know that.

 

[Martinus]

Regarding the Sioux-Iriquois question: there have been requests for the English to be called British depending on the leader. Couldn't they do something similar for a "Native American" category: choose one leader and you play the Sioux; choose another and you play the Iriquois? It would mean they have the same UB and UU, but it seems like a solution.

Actually, this thought crossed my mind as well. It would also explain why, on one of the screenshots, it shows "Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" and not "of the Sioux" - if the second leader was of the other tribe, it would make sense.

 

[Fideel]

* I already mentioned it, but nobody picked it up *

Has anybody already noticed this pic in the banner of the Fireaxis site?

http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16

It's the Duomo of Florence/Firenze!
Would that be the UB for an Italian civ? Or is it a Wonder? Or is it a building for a scenario?
Or am I mistaking and was it already in CivIV or Warlords?

Well, my guess is now:
1) Dutch: William of Orange
2) Portugese: Henry the Navigator
3) Byzantines: Justinian
4) Italians (instead of Israel): Cavour/Garibaldi/Victor Emmanuel/Mussolini
5) Babylonians: Hammurabi
6) Ethiopians: Makeda/Bilqis, Queen of Sheba
7) Khmer: Jayavarman
8) Polynesians: Hotu Matua
9) Native Americans: Sitting Bull
10) Mayas: Pacal