What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Saim]

@WingedPaladin
I said notable. I dunno, having Polynesians as a civ would have those obscure little islands (and possibly their leaders) representation. Plus, aren't the Polynesians simmiliar in culture? Like they aren't a very big continent... any differsity is probably the same as the diversity in East Asia.

 

[WingedPaladin]

@WingedPaladin
I said notable. I dunno, having Polynesians as a civ would have those obscure little islands (and possibly their leaders) representation. Plus, aren't the Polynesians simmiliar in culture? Like they aren't a very big continent... any differsity is probably the same as the diversity in East Asia.

Yes and no. Because they sprang from generally the same source, some aspects of their culture and language are similar, like they all had a polytheistic religion before western missionaries came. Some are not, such as their styles of dancing. Due to their living on islands, some Polynesians, like the Hawaiians, were isolated from other Polynesians and thus developed a culture unique to themselves. Many legends, religious aspects, governing methods, clothing style, are unique to only Hawaii. Western influence was different for each group also. Some were more influenced by the British, Americans, French, and/or Portugese and which westerner influenced them has had a big impact on modern culture and economy. Some groups welcomed westerners while others resisted them and their obtaining land on the islands. This is why Tonga is still a kingdom and Hawaii is not. The Polynesian islands are a great example of evolution due to separation and isolation in both the human sense and flora and fauna.

The languages of the Polynesians have a similar difference Portuguese does to Spanish. Different enough to be distinct, but similar enough to kinda sorta understand one another.

 

[Watiggi]

They what? they were? shucks, I hadn't played that Civ3 thingy much. I wasn't aware, thanks!

The Zulu were also in Civ2 aswell. I don't know anything about Civ1, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Zulu were in there too.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

The Zulu were also in Civ2 aswell. I don't know anything about Civ1, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.

Zulu were in Civ1. My first Civ game was as the Zulu.

 

[Jewman]

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

 

[T.A JONES]

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

Nothing to explain it but the fact There a lucky lil Civ. THe Civ gods smile down on them and They round out the cultural spectrum nicely.
At least that explains the first two shows As for gettin in CIv4, What better Civ can you drop in A warlords X pack?. (I know, theres a few better but they were picked aswell )

Im only saying whats next to come and why. Its not logical to pretend the fact the Zulus made it to other Civ titles takes away from the reasons they derived the Zulus were justified candidates in Warlords. Therefor my original reasonings that this continued pattern, or course of the theme, will bring Canada into the forefront is still sound.

Its the better support Firaxis builds around its Civ picks now that explain why other underdog civs like the Zulus have surmounted the usual obstacles to make it in areas other then the standard war civ or unique culture for a change

 

[Comrade Aart]

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

If it makes you feel better: in the SNES version of CIV I the Zulus were replaced by the Japanese. (Yes, they were not in the original game.)

 

[Pangur Bán]

Moai Statues are apparently going to be one of the new wonders. I guess that means the Polynesians are probably being added. Of this I approve. For what it's worth ... and it's worth little as they've already been decided ... I'd want the following seven civs:

1) The Gaels (i.e. the pre-modern Irish and Scots; I'm biased for this)
2) (Aboriginal) Australians
3) Polynesians
4) Abyssinians (call them Ethiopians if you must, but Ethiopia refers to the whole of sub-saharan/Black Africa until the modern era; was a good word, shame it was usurped by one country)
5) Maya
6) Israel (frankly a must)
7) Khmer

If the Hittites were added, I wouldn't be displeased, but I'm skeptical about adding any more European/western Eurasian civs. You'd think the Hittites would be likely, as they were in Civ 3 Conquests. If they are going to add Canada, then I'll have to find a way of excluding them from random epic games. I hope the "Byzantines" aren't added, and esp. not the Austrians, who are German. While the Germans are an important people, we don't need two German civilizations. If we're gonna have that, add the Saxons instead, who are more historically important and distinctive. If we have the Austrians (as sadly we may very well have), we should have the Californians; please don't turn Civ into a game for post-war Nation-states. If you want that, there are much better games than Civ 4 out there.

 

[WingedPaladin]

I agree, Israel is a must. So what if their country is small today? The influence of Israel in this world is colossal. Due to the scattering of Israel, most people around the world have their lineage go back to Abraham. But who to make a leaderhead? Abraham would be an awesome choice for an ancient leader (we may see a tug-o-war here since so many religions want to claim him) and so would his grandson Jacob who is named Israel. Judah would be a great choice too being the main branch from Israel and progenitor of the Jews in Israel. Moses is a great choice, but looks like he already occupies the position of prophet in the game. David... Solomon... so many choices! Jesus could be king of Israel, but historically he was a religious figure and not a politician despite his lineage to be so if it weren't for the Romans taking over. I'm sure if Firaxis did that they would have a controversy on their hands, so I doubt they will. Hey, it's good for a mod.

 

[Hawe Hawe]

Some often mentioned civs for the expansion are: Habsburg empire, holy roman empire, prussia, austria or even saxony. None of them represents a unique civilization. They are all german. Even Austria considered itself a german state until the end of the second world war. They might be good for some scenarios but i would be disappointed seeing them as a regular civ.

 

[flyingchicken]

They were part of the greater Mesopotamian culture (much like France was part of the Medieval culture, but one could argue France gained notable cultural distinction by the Renaissance), thus should be bundled up with Babylon.

Another thing is, it's far too controversial to just slap in Israel into a game just like that. You may not feel bad if you place Jesus as a leader in-game, but it might be taken as an insult by Christians (who believe in Jesus as God) and Jews (who do not consider Jesus as an important figure in their history). Place Abraham in, and you'd be insulting the Jews. It is not a matter to play around with--it's a matter of an entire way of life.

Of course, if Firaxis wants to scorch a few papers with things like "Israeli government bans the import of 'Civilization' games" or something for the satisfaction of the players, then let them.

 

[mitsho]

That didn't happen when the Hebrews were included into Call to Power, flyingchicken. You're talking nonsense!

 

[Watiggi]

Zulu were in Civ1. My first Civ game was as the Zulu.

So that would mean that the Zulu were kept for consistancies sake. Personally, with western thought influencing the choices, I am surprised that the Mongols and the Zulu ever got in, let alone stayed in. I'm glad though, and hope they (well, at least the Mongols) stay in with future versions.

As for the 10 civs: It would be really cool if we had Assyria and Babylonia together. Much history between the two. Mind you, Assyria was a warmonger, so maybe it wont get in. .... come to think of it, Assyria would have been a great choice for Warlords considering all the Vassalise, become Vassalised, Vassalise, become Vassalised, etc, etc, etc that went on in their history. Most appropriate.

 

[Alsark]

NONE of the Warlords civilizations were new to the Civilization series. In fact, their leaders weren't, either (with the exception of Mehmed, I think, although he was considered a "great leader" in Civilization III - Ramses II and Augustus were also in the "great leader" title, so the addition of Churchhill was the only purely original one). Following this predictable path where Firaxis seems to want to be consistent, it wouldn't be too far-fetched if we see all of the civilizations from the previous games simply copied over - and probably with the same leaders, too. If not the exact leaders themselves, then people listed under the "Great Leaders" category (found in the CivFanatic's website).

We already know that Portugal, Babylon, and the Netherlands will be released. So as it stands from the announced civilizations, my theory holds true. I can also say, with 80% certainty, that "William of Orange" will lead the Netherlands, "Prince Henry" will lead Portugal, and "Hammurabi" will lead Babylon. We also know that there is some Native American civilization, and many people believe that the picture shown is Sitting Bull of the Sioux, which could very well be a possibility. Given that Sitting Bull was considered a "great leader" (I don't know what this means - I never played the game) under the Iroquois in CivFanatic's Civilization III, however, perhaps he will be the second leader of the Iroquois faction, next to Hiawatha. In Civilization III, the term "Iroquois" represented all of the northern Native American tribues, so maybe the same will occur here. Given that we're supposed to have ten new factions, I am tempted to say that the Sioux will be a separate faction as compared to the Iroquois, with Sitting Bull leading the Sioux and Hiawatha leading the Iroquois, though the problem with this is that there might not be much of a difference between the two. This brings our total count to four or five, depending on if you think the Native American faction will be split. You then have the Mayans, Byzantines, Sumerians, and Hittites, bringing the total count to eight or nine. Given the Maoi Statues wonder, we might be seeing the Polynesians, putting the count to nine or ten... which pretty much accounts for everything.

As for the five additional leaderheads (the ten new factions ones plus five more additional leaderheads), I'm again going to say that they'll just be copies from the older games. In other words - Xerxes of Persia, Joan d'Arc of France, Cleopatra of Egypt, Abu Bakr of Arabia, and Osman of the Ottomans. Pachacuti of Inca might replace one of the above. Of course, they said sixteen additional leaderheads, whereas I said five before. The sixth is Abraham Lincoln, which only further proves my point that Firaxis seems to enjoy sticking to tradition (or at least not veer too far off the path).

Of course, this is all mere prediction on my part, but if my prediction holds to be true then I feel that what we will be seeing in Civilization V will be extremely predictable (except whether the civilizations will be put into the original or the expansions).

 

[flyingchicken]

That didn't happen when the Hebrews were included into Call to Power, flyingchicken. You're talking nonsense!

Why yes, I am. My noobness shows! Okay, add the Hebrews, fine. I'm just going to pout in a corner.

Anyhow, how about a Prophet Muhammad leaderhead, icon, and model? I have seen the light, and have realized that religious people don't get as easily offended as I thought they did.

 

[WingedPaladin]

Given that Polynesians are made up of a number of civilizations and governments, I think it is a funny idea to glop Polynesians together as one civilization.

If this is serious...we could also glop Asians, Europeans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, and South Americans together also. That would really simplify everything as we would only need 8 civilizations to worry about (if we're including Antartica also) and less civilizations would feel left out since they would be considered included in that region of the world...

The fun and replay ability in Civilization IV is due to the sheer variety of civilizations. Thank goodness we don't go to that extremity of simplicity with this game, otherwise boredom seeps in and we would have no use for expansion packs.

I'd say, if we use Kamehameha as the leaderhead, let it be the Hawaiians. If we use Tāufaʻāhau, let it be the Tongans, and so on.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Given that Polynesians are made up of a number of civilizations and governments, I think it is a funny idea to glop Polynesians together as one civilization.

If this is serious...we could also glop Asians, Europeans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, and South Americans together also. That would really simplify everything as we would only need 8 civilizations to worry about (if we're including Antartica also) and less civilizations would feel left out since they would be considered included in that region of the world...

The fun and replay ability in Civilization IV is due to the sheer variety of civilizations. Thank goodness we don't go to that extremity of simplicity with this game, otherwise boredom seeps in and we would have no use for expansion packs.

I'd say, if we use Kamehameha as the leaderhead, let it be the Hawaiians. If we use Tāufaʻāhau, let it be the Tongans, and so on.

Not really comparable.Polynesians share a common origin and to some extent even today a common culture and language group, to a much greater extent than Native Americans or even "Celts". As it appears the Native Americans will be a civ, and the "Celts" (in fairness the developers meant Gauls rather than Celts) are already are one, I wouldn't go too much by this logic.

BTW, the civilization franchise is at the lowbrow end of the historical simulation market; it is intended as a fun strategy game .. which it is; it is not and never has been an in depth historical simulation. If you want higher brow historical simulation, play paradox games like Europa Universalis II, Hearts of Iron and Crusader Kings.

Anyways, on the Polynesians again, no individual Polynesian culture is significantly more important than the rest. Polynesians should only get in the game in my POV only as Polynesians; the only possible exception to that I'd say would be Maoris, but even then I would regard this a an imperfect waste.

 

[Virulent]

If it makes you feel better: in the SNES version of CIV I the Zulus were replaced by the Japanese. (Yes, they were not in the original game.)

This would make sense considering the SNES version was ported by a Japanese company (Koei, I believe).

 

[Kushluk]

Yawn. I hope there are not more instances of giving barbarians the title of "civilisation" becuase they aren't white. Yawn.

Celts are also barbs btw. And Zulus.

 

[flyingchicken]

What is a barbarian but an "uncivilized" person. And what is "uncivilized" but a purely social construct, defined by the cultural context as to where a person lived and grew up.

What is truly uncivilized is a society without any social constructs, without a definition of what is the "right" way of living. Hence there are no such things as uncivilized societies.

Of course, the "right" way is not always a "good" way. Roman civilization was more comfortable than Gaelic civilization, yet both were civilized in their own ways.