What about Mesopotamia?!

[Cheetah]

There must be a civilization to represent the Mesopotamian area!

Mesopotamia was the land of Sumer, Akkad, Babylon and Assyria.

It's basically where human civilisation started! It's where the first cities were built, the first empires were formed, where agriculture, mathematics, astronomy and metal working were discovered, and the city of Babylon is one of the most famous cities ever and one of the most important during its long existence!

A Civ version without a Mesopotamian civilisation is a disgrace to the idea of Civ!

 

[Louis XXIV]

I agree. I've honestly been shocked at the downplaying of it in the last game. Much of western Civilization comes from the Fertile Crescent in the most basic ways we take for granted (wheat, cows, sheep, cities, the concept of empire). I guess Firaxis might argue that Persia or Egypt represents them, but it really doesn't. I can see having trouble putting Assyria in (similar to Persia) or Sumeria in (due to lack of concrete knowledge about details), but Babylon certainly should be a no brainer.

 

[NA00]

Babylonia was in CivII - I wonder why it was taken out. Along with a few other civs.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It was in Civ3 too. It eventually made it into Civ4, but the lack of enthusiasm for having them in from the start was quite surprising. Babylon was never a favorite to play in Civ3, but that was gameplay related. Having them in the game still remained quite important.

 

[Herrhals]

it was represented directly by Sumer and Babylonians, and indirectly by the Persians, Ottomans.

 

[Cheetah]

it was represented directly by Sumer and Babylonians, and indirectly by the Persians, Ottomans.

As Louis said, Sumeria and Babylon came in expansion packs, and were not included from the start. Which is wrong.

And having Babylon represented indirectly by Persia and the Ottomans is like letting America be an indirect representation for Russia! Or letting the Mongols represent China!

Babylon MUST be among the civs in the original release of Civ5!

 

[Seventh Child]

As Louis said, Sumeria and Babylon came in expansion packs, and were not included from the start. Which is wrong.

And having Babylon represented indirectly by Persia and the Ottomans is like letting America be an indirect representation for Russia! Or letting the Mongols represent China!

Babylon MUST be among the civs in the original release of Civ5!

It would be more like having America represented by England.
Or having Canada represented by America

I'd probably like to see Sumeria back in from BtS to represent Mesopotamia, or Babylonia.

But to be honest I'd be perfectly fine if neither of them were.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And having Babylon represented indirectly by Persia and the Ottomans is like letting America be an indirect representation for Russia! Or letting the Mongols represent China!

Mongols representing China would probably be a good example. America and Russia not so much, but the first really gives the point. Persia and Ottomans conquered the same territory, but they built on other accomplishments which were truly amazing.

 

[Hypernova]

As I'd rather have Scandinavia than Vikings and I'd rather have Turks than Ottomans, I'd prefer simply "Mesopotamia" to specifically Babylon or Sumer, not identifying with a specific state (or group of city states) gives a timeless aspect to the Civ you're playing (and we mustn't confuse timeless Civilizations with the comparatively short lived States that ruled them). It would be suitable at any epoch in history, at the dawn of time you have Sumer, later you have Babylon and then in the Modern Age you have Iraq.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Well, I thought not having Bablyon in vanilla Civ4 was scandalous, but Sumeria is maybe a bit too obscure to be right in from the start and I'm OK with them being added in the second expansion (less OK with them having a mythical ruler who may or may not have existed).

 

[awesome]

As I'd rather have Scandinavia than Vikings and I'd rather have Turks than Ottomans, I'd prefer simply "Mesopotamia" to specifically Babylon or Sumer, not identifying with a specific state (or group of city states) gives a timeless aspect to the Civ you're playing (and we mustn't confuse timeless Civilizations with the comparatively short lived States that ruled them). It would be suitable at any epoch in history, at the dawn of time you have Sumer, later you have Babylon and then in the Modern Age you have Iraq.

nah, i don't think that's such a great idea. if you have your civs be too vague, you'll end up with only one per continent eventually, and even then you could group continents together.

 

[Dachs]

Why 'Babylon' and not 'Sumer'? Babylon makes me think of that semi-transitory Hammurabic empire and that Chaldean abomination that survived for less than a century. Even the Kassites lasted longer. Sumer is much better.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Because everybody knows about Babylon. That's how it works.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Also the Babylonians were the "last" of those true Mesopotamians before the Persians steamrolled in.

Though personally even though Mesopotamia is one of the cradles of civilization, I'm okay with them being left out; just as long as they're in the expansion packs, of course. I think the reason Mesopotamia wasn't necessarily included in Civ4 (and possibly Civ5) is because Firaxis wanted to put in some more "different" and "exotic" civilizations. Of course Babylon and Sumer are nothing like Persia, but in the common conception of them, they're too close; it'd be more 'interesting' (and thus marketable) to have a different civ in, like the Incas or what not, even if the Mesopotamian civilizations are more or less one of the ultimate examples of "civilization".

 

[Hypernova]

nah, i don't think that's such a great idea. if you have your civs be too vague, you'll end up with only one per continent eventually, and even then you could group continents together.

Absolutely true, but I don't think Mesopotamia is too vague - it seems quite distinct, though maybe your right.

 

[CornPlanter]

Because everybody knows about Babylon. That's how it works.

So true That's how they do things in Firaxis and thats how we end up with leaders like Joan of Arc or Saint Basil's Cathedral picture to represent Kremlin.

 

[topsecret]

Link for Assyria, Phonecia, and Israel:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354620

 

[LDiCesare]

I will proclaim to the world the deeds of Gilgamesh. This was the man to whom all things were known; this was the king who knew the countries of the world. He was wise, he saw mysteries and knew secret things, he brought us a tale of the days before the flood. He went on a long journey, was weary, worn-out with labour, returning he rested, he engraved on a stone the whole story.

I always renamed my leader to Gilgamesh and my first city to Uruk when I played the Babylonians in Civ2. Give me Sumer any day.

 

[Akkon888]

You need leaders to represent Mesopotamia. I can't think of individuals except Sargon of Akkad. And of course some others like Hammurabi and Gilgamesh have already been implemented.

 

[Cheetah]

Why 'Babylon' and not 'Sumer'? Babylon makes me think of that semi-transitory Hammurabic empire and that Chaldean abomination that survived for less than a century. Even the Kassites lasted longer. Sumer is much better.

Both Babylon or Sumer would be fine for me. Even Akkadia or Assyria would be somewhat okay.

Babylon I suppose is the most likely candidate simply because their main city was the biggest and most well known, and that it was important not only for the Babylonians, but also for the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks and even the Hebrews. Also, the Babylonian Empire survived an occupation by Assyria and rose to power again afterwards, so it has some "survivability", so to say.

I think Sumer is a great choice as well.

But to not include any of them, and to ignore the very cradle of civilisation, is simply crazy, IMHO.