What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Scaramanga]

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.

And city names....?

 

[Zenon_pt]

Question where did you see Portugal on the new Exp patch???

 

[Virulent]

Question where did you see Portugal on the new Exp patch???

They were mentioned being one of the new civs in the press release.

 

[Zenon_pt]

OK!!! I went googling to confirm!!!
So 10 new civ's. 16 new leaders!!! so 6 new leader of already existing civ's. One American: Abe!!!
So only 5!!! hum!!!

We have:
for civ's:
Portugal, Babylon, Netherlands, and probably the Sioux (of civ2)!!!
the remain six civ's. hum!!!

So Henry (Infante D. Henrique), Hamurabi, William, Sitting Bull. plus Abe they are 5/16 new leaders.

The Cristo Redendor, that as surprising!!! as new wonder!!!

I ask if the new 7 wonders of the world at 7/7/07 will be on the next civ, or still on this new exp. patch???

Hope for Alexandria as greek city!!!

 

[sourboy]

@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.

I agree completely... maybe I misused the term "Amerindians" -- but I was mainly referring to the lack of need on including more than one "Plains Indians" as you stated. The Aztecs, Maya, and Inca certainly deserve to all be in the game.

 

[Giaur]

And an old link, to spread knowledge a bit ...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5258583

Sorry, wrong thread ...

 

[Antilogic]

* 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

I'm going to go ahead and say that is likely a scenario building and not evidence they are going to add a separate Italian civilization. Rome is in, and although there are plenty of arguments as to why they don't represent modern Italians all that well, it would be way too confusing to have doubles of city names like Rome on the map.

On the other hand, you name some good ones, although I'm going to complain again about calling (9) "Native Americans"--the Aztec, Inca, and Maya are all native Americans as well. I'm not sure on Polynesia, Khmer, Ethiopia, Italy, and the Plains Indians, as I will call your (9). Maybe one or two, but not all of them. I am thinking they might throw in Sumeria and Austria, both of which have made prior Civ appearances.

 

[sourboy]

okay..

Portugal
Netherlands
Babylonians
<"Plains Indians">

... scenarios aside (Rome/Italy)
Poland
Maya
Siam/Khmer
Ghana/Ethiopia
Israel/Byzantium/Sumeria
Phoenicians/Cathage

 

[Pratputajao]

* 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

I would be surprised to see Italy after you already have Rome? Didnt Italy only become a unified country in the late 19th centuary?

I for one would be disappointed to see Polynesians put in before Vietnam or Siam. I really hope this isnt the case. Um, what is the capital of Polynesia? That was quite an accomplishment that they were able sail to distant Islands on tiny boats but they were hardly the first explorers. ...actually though, seing that they put the Celts in anything is possible.

The rest look like a good possibility.

 

[Fideel]

I'm going to go ahead and say that is likely a scenario building and not evidence they are going to add a separate Italian civilization. Rome is in, and although there are plenty of arguments as to why they don't represent modern Italians all that well, it would be way too confusing to have doubles of city names like Rome on the map.

mmhh ... your right. Rome would be a city that's the capital for 2 civs then ... Maybe call "Roman" Rome Roma or Old Rome, and "Italian" Rome just Rome or New Rome. But that would be weird, since we don't speak in terms of Old and New Rome.
If the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore or in short Duomo isn't a UB for the Italian civ, then this would be the sign of a great Late Middle Ages / Quattrocento-Renaissance scenario. From The Plague to Religious wars. I'd like it.

I would be surprised to see Italy after you already have Rome? Didnt Italy only become a unified country in the late 19th centuary?

But you can't equal Rome with Italy. The powerful states of Florence, Venice, Genua, Napels and medieval Rome/Papal States had as much connection with the Roman Empire as France. They just were a mix of the Roman cities and the Ostrogoths/Langobards, just like France is a mix of Roman(o-Gaul)s and Franks. The only thing that's different is that Italy is on the place where Rome's centre of power was. OK, they will have more Roman blood than French people, but for instance they don't speak Latin any more and except for Rome, their big cities are different(ly named) than the ones in the Roman Empire.
And yes, Italy only became united in 19th century. So did Germany. And the USA only became independant in the late 18th century.
But it's probably only a scenario civ ... So I musn't argue with you about it.

I for one would be disappointed to see Polynesiams put in before Vietnam or Siam. I really hope this isnt the case. Um, what is the capital of Polynesia? That is good they were able sail to distant Island on tiny boats but they were hardly the first explorers. ...actually though, seing that they put the Celts in anything is possible.

The rest look like a good possibility.

Maybe instead of cities, the Polynesians could have island names. Like Rapa Nui (or Easter Island). I'd like really like the Polynesians being in there because although they are well known and had more of a civ (primarily on Easter Island) than the Zulu of Celts, I think they haven't ever been implimented in a game.
But well, the only reason I put them in is because you have the Moai Statues as a Wonder and we haven't yet have had a civ in Oceania. They'd fill that gap.
But we have the Angkor Wat, Cristo Redentor and Shwedagon Paya. And it's very doubtfull they'd put Khmer, Brazil AND Burma in the game.
It's just a guess and a hope.

On the other hand, you name some good ones, although I'm going to complain again about calling (9) "Native Americans"--the Aztec, Inca, and Maya are all native Americans as well.

I know in theory Native Americans is too broad and also encompasses South American Indians. But when you use the term, most of the people will only associate it with the North American Native Americans. You could call them the Lakota Sioux. But in that term, they'd only cover a small part of pre-colonised north America.

I'm not sure on Polynesia, Khmer, Ethiopia, Italy, and the Plains Indians, as I will call your (9). Maybe one or two, but not all of them. I am thinking they might throw in Sumeria and Austria, both of which have made prior Civ appearances.

I only chose them because they represent different continents and I think that's the developpers will choose. Besides look to Warlords: Celts, Vikings (Europe), Carthage (North Africa), Zulu (South Africa), Ottomans (Middle East), Koreans (Far East).
I very much doubt they'd but Sumeria AND Babylonia in 1 expansion. They are too similar. I think they prefer global diversity.
And Austria. Mmmmhhh ... I'd like to play as Maria Theresia (as she ruled my country Belgium), but I think they're too similar to the Germans. And we already have the Dutch and the Portugese as European civs. And I think they'd prefer Byzantium to Austria.

 

[Khamul]

And Austria. Mmmmhhh ... I'd like to play as Maria Theresia (as she ruled my country Belgium), but I think they're too similar to the Germans. And we already have the Dutch and the Portugese as European civs. And I think they'd prefer Byzantium to Austria.

I'd like to see Austria, because Austria was a major power in Europe. Although if Austria is added, then German civilization should be changed to Germany or Prussia. After all, Austria was a german nation. Personally I think there should be much more non-Europe civilizations.

And one more thing: If they are going to add industrial era leader to Japan, they should also add Shinto-religion. But I guess it's not going to happen. It could be too controversial.

 

[Martinus]

so 6 new leader of already existing civ's.

As I said in the other thread "10 new civs, 16 new leaders" does not have to mean "6 new leaders of existing civs".

In fact, my theory is that there will be a Native American civ with two leaders, one for Sioux and one for Iroquis.

 

[Tee Kay]

And one more thing: If they are going to add industrial era leader to Japan, they should also add Shinto-religion. But I guess it's not going to happen. It could be too controversial.

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.

 

[Khamul]

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.

I know Shinto is not world religion, but basically nor is taoism. Shinto was important factor in Japan imperialism-era policy, and it's still contoversal in East-Asia, so it would be nice.

But I know they won't add it. I would like to see new religions anyway.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually, Taoism spread beyond China, into Korea and south east asia. So do confucianism. Hinduism was influential in south east asia for a long time too.

What do you mean by controversial? Japan's war time record is controversial but not Shintoism the religion itself imho.

 

[Khamul]

What do you mean by controversial? Japan's war time record is controversial but not Shintoism the religion itself imho.

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...

Japan shrine visit angers S Korea

It was the prime minister's fourth visit while in office
South Korea has summoned the Japanese ambassador to protest over a visit to a controversial war shrine by Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The Foreign Ministry in Seoul said it was "deeply regrettable" that Mr Koizumi had visited the shrine.

The Yasukuni shrine honours 2.5 million Japanese who have died in conflicts since 1853, including a number of war criminals.
BBC, January 2004

Well, at least Yasukuni Shrine is controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni

 

[Martinus]

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.

Neither is Judaism then.

 

[Martinus]

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...

Japan shrine visit angers S Korea

It was the prime minister's fourth visit while in office
South Korea has summoned the Japanese ambassador to protest over a visit to a controversial war shrine by Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The Foreign Ministry in Seoul said it was "deeply regrettable" that Mr Koizumi had visited the shrine.

The Yasukuni shrine honours 2.5 million Japanese who have died in conflicts since 1853, including a number of war criminals.
BBC, January 2004

Well, at least Yasukuni Shrine is controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni

You are confusing things here. If Germany made a Christian chapel to honour nazi war criminals, and the German politicians visited it every year to pay their honours, people around the world would be angered, but not because it is Christian.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...

You're way off the mark here. The controversy is not over whether or not it is Shinto, but the fact that it enshrines and glorifies convicted war criminals and that Japan continues to defend it while attempting to whitewash the history of its brutal subjugation of Korea and China.

As for new civs, I'm kinda neutral on it since civs can be modded in anyway. However, I would like to see Poland (to further represent Eastern Europe), Nubia (as another great African civ), and the Khmer Empire (or perhaps even Bagan, the ancestor of Burma, since they're including Shwedagaon Paya).

 

[ParkCungHee]

I know Shinto is not world religion, but basically nor is taoism. Shinto was important factor in Japan imperialism-era policy, and it's still contoversal in East-Asia, so it would be nice.

But theres a distinction there. Taoism is practiced mainly in China, but theres nothing inherently "chinese" about the religion. The Tao Teh Ching is a series of poems advocating following the "tao" which all things have.

Shintaoism, is an inherently Japanese religion. It combines myth with Japanese history to such an extent that you can't seperate the two. Shintao is based around quasi-historical Japanese figures such as Emperor Jimmu. Its easy to allow Taoism, because while Taoist England is unusual, its comprehensible. The Idea of England founding a religion based around the history of a civ that they haven't made contact with, and then not neccessarily have good relations with, even though their religion says their leader is a god, and England's is not, is not just unusual, but completely non-sensical.

This is why I say Judaism should remain a religion only, because Shintao and Judaism are both inherently tied to the Civ.