What additional civilizations do you want in Civilization 5? [Post-BNW Edition]

[TPangolin]

I'm sure that I've generalized Australia and Mexico to make my argument, and I apologize for that. I'd love it if people who know more about Australia and Mexico would share what they know.

I've made some very popular Australia and Mexico mods (in addition to Canada) that (in my opinion) could slot seamlessly in with Firaxis' civs in terms of quality and introduction of unique gameplay mechanics and flavor. I'd like to hear your take on them.

 

[daft]

Original Lithuanians were a pagan tribe of Baltic peoples(like Latvians and Estonians, and the now non existing Prussians). They were an aggressive tribe and created/conquered a large empire which consisted of present day Lithuania, Belarus, parts of Ukraine and Poland.
From what I've read the Poles invited over German Teutonic Knights (from modern Israel) to help fight off the constant raids by the pagan Prussians. The Teutons obliged, quickly subjugated (or rather annihilated) the Prussians-who would not convert to Christianity and then began to enlarge their new empire. They started moving on against the Lithuanians. Lithuanians merged with Poland and converted to Catholicism, otherwise they would have shared the Prussian's fate.

 

[daft]

WHY IS SCOTLAND NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST?
PLEASE CONSIDER THE SCOTS!
they are easily one of the most interesting and fascinating tribes not only not included in civ games up to now, they're not even on this list!
I think I will have to start a new thread to add Scotland to Civ6.
Oh, yes, besides that, what about the GOTHS?(visigoths especially). Aren't the conquerors of Rome, who later formed organized governments worthy of being in the game, more so than for example the Huns? Their longswordsmen were the best of their time. Remember the story of Alaric?
Also, Phoenicia, the mercantile seafarers, THEY INVENTED CURRENCY!
They could be added, I know they and Carthage are same peoples, but Carthaginians separated themselves from Phoenicia and both countries co existed for a while.
The capital city of Tyre, Sidon, Ugarit, Byblos and others, all Phoenician originally. Not aggressive or expansionistic but excellent merchants and sailors.
Lastly, got an idea about a joint native American tribe's nation called Amerindia. The city names would be American Native tribes names like: Powhatan, Potomac, Cherokee, Mohican, Seminole and lots of others(actual native names could be used).
The leaders could be Sitting Bull, Tecumseh.
Not a good one?

 

[Teproc]

The problem with the Scots is that they have the Celts, so that would be somewhat redundant.

Agreed about the Phoenicians, they are the biggest omission IMO.

The Goths I don't really need though. I mean they're fine, why not, but they went with the Huns because of the iconic leader, and I'm just fine with that.

 

[JeszKar]

The problem with the Scots is that they have the Celts, so that would be somewhat redundant.

Agreed about the Phoenicians, they are the biggest omission IMO.

The Goths I don't really need though. I mean they're fine, why not, but they went with the Huns because of the iconic leader, and I'm just fine with that.

They still can split up the celts in the followinf CIV game (Gauls, Britons).
And I would choose the Goths before the Huns, because they actually had a kingdom for a relativly long time, and also real cities.

 

[phaethon16]

Also, Phoenicia is probably better represented as a group of CS. You could argue that a lot of civs are conspicuously absent from civ 5, but the fact of the matter is that Phoenicia is present- as CS. Considering they were a bunch of CS and that there are 3 different Phoenician CS in the game already, I would say that there are other civs that can't be as easily represented by CS that deserve priority status. As for the Huns vs. Goths debate, I would side with the Huns because culturally the Goths would be similar to the Celts, but the Huns represent something different than what other European barb civs can offer. Then again, the Huns do bare a resemblance to the Mongols, so... Personally, I think that the Huns only exist because of the scenario, and that was a lost opportunity to add Hungary. It would have been fun to introduce Hungary and Austria in the same expansion.

 

[andreafin]

Also, Phoenicia is probably better represented as a group of CS. You could argue that a lot of civs are conspicuously absent from civ 5, but the fact of the matter is that Phoenicia is present- as CS. Considering they were a bunch of CS and that there are 3 different Phoenician CS in the game already, I would say that there are other civs that can't be as easily represented by CS that deserve priority status. As for the Huns vs. Goths debate, I would side with the Huns because culturally the Goths would be similar to the Celts, but the Huns represent something different than what other European barb civs can offer. Then again, the Huns do bare a resemblance to the Mongols, so... Personally, I think that the Huns only exist because of the scenario, and that was a lost opportunity to add Hungary. It would have been fun to introduce Hungary and Austria in the same expansion.

wasnt carthage a phoenician civilisation? or was it just a powerful city state? how is it a CS could hold off Rome so long unless it was a civ in its own right? so maybe carthage should represent phoenicians

 

[Teproc]

Carthage has phoenician origins, but they're not Phoenicians. Tha's like saying America doesn't need to be in the game because England is.

It does make sense for Phoenicians to be present in the form of City-States, but I'd still like to see tem in civ form.

Edit : Well it's more like saying England doesn't need to be in the game because America is, but you get my point.

 

[phaethon16]

Carthage has phoenician origins, but they're not Phoenicians. Tha's like saying America doesn't need to be in the game because England is.

It does make sense for Phoenicians to be present in the form of City-States, but I'd still like to see tem in civ form.

Edit : Well it's more like saying England doesn't need to be in the game because America is, but you get my point.

This is pretty much it for me. Phoenicia is cool and I think that a fun civ could be made out of them, but they do sort of work as CS. Someone should make a mod out of it.

 

[TPangolin]

The More Civs team already has and it's brilliant.

 

[andreafin]

Carthage has phoenician origins, but they're not Phoenicians. Tha's like saying America doesn't need to be in the game because England is.

It does make sense for Phoenicians to be present in the form of City-States, but I'd still like to see tem in civ form.

Edit : Well it's more like saying England doesn't need to be in the game because America is, but you get my point.

just to argue the point we have the greeks. they really WERE city states, only 'unifying' to face common enemies like persia; and more often fighting amongst themselves, unless i read the peloponnesian war wrongly. so if we have greeks why not have the phoenicians as a civ too? or if no phoenicians why do we have the greeks? i am guessing because a lot of greek legends and literature are well known. and i dont remember any famous phoenician myths or histories, or gods offhand.

 

[Altisma]

Still waiting for Italy to be represented, especially if Venice succeeds, then people can't use it as a excuse of already representing Italy.

 

[Unspeakable Horror]

Argentina

 

[altayrneto]

HRE! (I know, we have Germany and Austria, that should replace HRE, but I'd love play as or with Charlemagne)

 

[daft]

continuing the discussion about those Phoenicians. They also were a bunch of city states I believe, just like the Greeks, only a lot smaller in land area.
The point about England and America is 100% on! Phoenicia was like England in this case and Carthage the US. Carthaginians became more militaristic and especially expansionistic than Phoenicia-kind of like US vs England. Granted England was expansionistic but much more in a colonization type way, seafarers, US had the room to expand inland to forge a huge empire(at the expense of the native tribes)
I'd say Phoenicia and Sumeria(where it all begun, unless you believe in Atlantis) should definitely be included, if not in vanilla game, then at least in an expansion.

 

[daft]

Still waiting for Italy to be represented, especially if Venice succeeds, then people can't use it as a excuse of already representing Italy.

well, the only way to fit in Italy is either in:
1 in a late era scenario, where Rome is no longer a separate nation
2 If they'd heed to the idea of grouping of nations, I had a thread about it somewhere.
example:
CIVVI consisting of 60 nations divided into 15 groups of 4 tribes each. There could be only one tribe in play(entered) in a single game from each group, including by human player(s) and AI.
This would work very well and prohibit nations with common roots, such as Italy and Rome from co existing in the game, or conduct wars against one another, which would be silly, as well as sharing same city names for many civs.
You cannot have Italy without the first and capital city being Rome(or Roma), same with the Romans though. This would prevent such paradoxes. It's true you would not be able to play against 3 other nations at all during a single game, but the benefits are far greater.
Example of a Group of Nations:
1. ROME 2. ITALY 3. VENICE 4. PAPAL STATE(VATICAN) OR GENOA.
you'd only be able to choose one or none of these at the start of the game, if you go with a tribe from a different group the AI would pick one of these 4 to play against you.

 

[TPangolin]

Oh, that'd be cool. England could actually be split up into colonies or eras, and other nations into dynasties.

 

[daft]

yes, it would be cool. It would enable all sorts of nations being available to be played as in the game without nations like Romans squaring off against the Italians, the Romans are the direct predecessors of Italians, so in fact it would not make sense to have them both available at the same time, but one of them being available per game makes a lot of sense to me.
Just avoid stuff like this example, here are some other ones:
Group of playable nations: again, none of these can play against any of the other group member in any single game.
FRANCE, GAULS(GALLS), FRANKS(HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE), NORMANDY(OR BURGUNDY)
In this example French can't only face off against these 3 nations, which makes perfect sense 'cause Galls are ancestors of Franks who in turn are ancestors of the French and Normandy or Burgundy are closely related(could share a lot of the same city names this way)
another group:
GERMANY, PRUSSIA, GOTHS, SAXONS
all closely related, although you could fit in Prussia and Germany as separate nations.
other examples:
SCANDINAVIA(as a one nation), SWEDEN, DENMARK, NORWAY
GREECE, BYZANTIUM, MACEDONIA, MINOANS
GREAT BRITAIN, ENGLAND- only got 2 nations here, 2 others would have to be added, ones which never had contact with these nations, so that we could recreate history during our games, for example: CARTHAGE AND PHOENICIA
this way they could divide all nations, add several new nations, just keep the closely related to each other together as well as those who never came into contact with each other throughout history together as well(if need be)
example of a group where nations never faced each other in history(for the earth scenarios especially important)
CHINA, INCA, MOROCCO, SUMERIA
The groups could be made of 3 nations for a total of 60 tribes together, divided into 20 groups-so that instead of playing only against 14 opponents tops, you could play against 19tribes
details would have to be worked out, but this way Italy and Rome, France and Gauls(or Franks) can all exist in the game.

 

[JeszKar]

Galls aren't ancestors of Franks. The Franks were germanic people.
Also I don't think the modern (or even the renaissance) italians consider themselves romans.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Most of those only occupied the same geographical area rather than actually being related. Byzantium should be with Rome much more so than any Greek/Italian civ. And why should China be with Morocco/Incas/Sumeria because there is no other Chinese civ? Many of the Chinese dynasties deserve to to be in separately more than Macedonia/Prussia/Great Britain/Franks should separate from Greece/Germany/England/France.