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

[Iklabain]

Another terrible idea is the Inuit civ. I know that there are many people pushing them, but just no. No agriculture, no real settlements, no place in a civ game at all.

Neither did the Huns, although they did capture cities and make them their own.
I still believe they could be included but the rest of what you said is true... Sad, but true.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I said this in the BNW thread, but it makes more sense here: Nepal would make for an interesting civ.

They could fill in that mountain niche lost from Pueblo. And since they are truly a mountainous culture, they wouldn't need a Carthage gimmick but could have a full-fledged, out-of-box mechanic

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

From civilization nostalgia, I really miss the Sumerians, who IIRC, haven't been in the franchise since Civ 3. And since everyone seems to want another American-Indian civilization, I'm really surprised that the Hopi are usually excluded from the list.

 

[wigwam]

Voted for Ashanti, Colombia (call it Colombia, but make it a Colombia-Venezuela-Bolivia blob like Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland), Hungary, the Khazars, Kush/Nubia, and Vietnam.

I added Bulgaria (the last European civ other than Hungary that really deserves inclusion—sorry, Ukrainians), Nepal (I'd vote Tibet, but there's no chance they'll ever be in a Civ game, and besides, Gurkhas are cooler than anything Tibet's got), and Somalia (my dark hobbyhorse; I think they'd be a great maritime/mercantile addition). I think that's a good geographic spread and a nice mix of cultural, militaristic, mercantile, religious, diplomatic, etc.

Honorable mentions, but no votes, for Argentina, Khmer, and Kongo.

 

[ldvhl]

...and Somalia (my dark hobbyhorse; I think they'd be a great maritime/mercantile addition)...

I'll agree on this point - Somalia has an interesting history, and the sultanates that occupied its territory in the past give a lot of room for CiV development.

 

[phaethon16]

The only middle-Eastern civ that want is Israel. If they can't be in, I want nothing more from the Middle-East. The Phoenicians are covered by Carthage and CS, Sumer would be Mesopotamian overkill, the Hittites don't really interest me, and Armenia I don't know enough about. We need to move away from the Middle-East, and I'm not even that crazy about Israel, I just want them a little bit more than the others.

 

[AbsintheRed]

From civilization nostalgia, I really miss the Sumerians, who IIRC, haven't been in the franchise since Civ 3. And since everyone seems to want another American-Indian civilization, I'm really surprised that the Hopi are usually excluded from the list.

Sumer was also in Civ IV, came with BtS IIRC

The only middle-Eastern civ that want is Israel. If they can't be in, I want nothing more from the Middle-East. The Phoenicians are covered by Carthage and CS, Sumer would be Mesopotamian overkill, the Hittites don't really interest me, and Armenia I don't know enough about. We need to move away from the Middle-East, and I'm not even that crazy about Israel, I just want them a little bit more than the others.

Phoenicia, Armenia, Sumer, Hittites. Would love to see all of them in.
All are very worthy (and unique enough) additions, much more than Israel IMO
Having said that, I won't even mind the Hebrews/Israel either

 

[phaethon16]

Sure they're all very worthy, but I just think that we should be moving away from the middle East for new civs, and into areas like Africa and SE Asia. I wouldn't be unhappy if one of the middle Eastern civs got in, I would probably end up liking it for its design elements. But, in my ideal list of 9 new civs, none of them are from the Middle East. I read a little about Armenia though, and they have become my new favorite from the region.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, Armenia is not your typical middle-eastern civ
One of my favourite dark horses (I call them dark horse because their history isn't known well enough)

 

[Iklabain]

I said this in the BNW thread, but it makes more sense here: Nepal would make for an interesting civ.

They could fill in that mountain niche lost from Pueblo. And since they are truly a mountainous culture, they wouldn't need a Carthage gimmick but could have a full-fledged, out-of-box mechanic

True, If we can't have Tibet why not have Nepal?

As to those who favor Bulgaria over Ukraine, I strongly disagree.
The Kievan Rus'/Ukraine Fought off multiple attacks from invading Vikings when other empires crumbled, and they launched a military campaign to the east and defeated the Khazars. Also, there is just a big gap In eastern Europe that needs to be filled, the rest of south, central & south east Europe not so much.

Hungary... I'm fine with Hungary as long as they do It well. It truly would be a great civ to have and could make the game quite interesting.

_____________________________________________________________________
We get angry, Life goes on and AWESOME EMPIRES PREVAIL! (Elf with a goatee)
_____________________________________________________________________
Civs to be Included.
Top Next Expansion 9: Nubia, Ukraine/KievanRus', Israel, Nepal, Vietnam, Timurid, Inuit, Cherokee, Argentina.
DLC: Kongo, Navajo/Anasazi, Merina, Khazars, Afghanistan, Hungary (This should be put In a DLC before the next expansion)

 

[phaethon16]

Fun fact, a study was done on all the countries in the world, calculating the number of noteworthy individuals in that countries history as a percentage, so it found out which countries would have the most famous/successful/important people if all countries had the same population, and Hungary had the second most after Armenia. MAGYAR POWER!

 

[Nujabes]

My list, in order:

Ashanti – Y'all know they're my favorites. If you don't know much about them, I'd be happy to make an effort post, but I thought I'd give a preliminary vision of them instead-

My ideas for the Ashanti revolve around the Golden Stool ( see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Golden_Stool ) - I think perhaps incorporated as something like a UA with: “The first work of art created by an Ashanti Great Artist will always be The Golden Stool, which grants an additional (dope bonuses) and provides X production for the city that possesses it.

With a UU Akan/Talking Drummer that buffs the combat ability of units and/or the production of cities in its radius, I can imagine the Ashanti shifting the Golden Stool around in conjunction with a Talking Drummer in order to greatly boost the production of a particular city.

The Golden Stool would have the obvious negative side effect of being a super juicy great work that everyone else in the world is gonna want to take away from them, but as long as it is possessed by the Ashanti will give them great benefits. I just don’t have a good idea for what the values should be yet

Vietnam – I imagine them with strong combat defense and a significant passive bonus to defensive culture, although that feels rather unimaginative. I definitely feel those who are concerned about what an Americo-centric depiction of Vietnam would look like, but the nation’s history is so rich that I have faith in a more robust representation. Trung Trac is completely baller and I gotta be honest, I’d even be cool with both twins serving as co-leaders.

Nubia – I feel like they should be paired up with Egypt in some manner akin to how Assyria and Babylon are. I’m spitballing this, but perhaps something like “Wonders built by you and your allies contribute significantly to your Golden Age meter”. There are probably more interesting ways to interpret their syncretism, the problem comes from significantly differentiating them, which funny enough was/is a problem in reality.

Argentina – If you haven’t checked out Leugi’s “Patria Grande” custom civs, check it out right now:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488283
I dig his latest conception of Argentina and I think Eva Peron and the legacy of Peronism is just too fascinating not to include. I understand the resistance to modern civilizations, but I find Argentina pretty compelling as a nation of immigrants and a producer of great people.

Hungary – It’s time, but seal off Europe after this. For real though, Matthias Corvinus is the kind of leader that drags a less relevant civilization closer to inclusion, so for a nation like Hungary it feels like an easy choice. In terms of the their in-game abilities, I got little of interest, and will defer to those more knowledgeable like AbsintheRed (thanks for the feedback, by the way! I definitely did just forget Phoenicia, which is amazing after all the times Tyrian Purple came up)

Timurids Timur is also that kind of dude, but the Timurids shouldn't be slept on regardless. Their empire also nicely fills up a huge empty spot. I gotta imagine they should be in some ways derivative of the Mongols in order to point to their shared lineage, but they should also have some kind of cultural benefits as well to make clear their differences.

Kongo – I’m starting to cool on Kongo, if just because I see how much their popularity relies on the fact that a lot of people have no idea of any other civilizations on the continent; to that end I don’t see very interesting concepts for them or much beyond “Africa needs more” (which is totally true). Still though, they have some really cool aspects to represent, particularly in terms of cultural syncretism. A UA that turns incoming religious pressure into wealth or gold or something could reflect their turn to Christianity in a cool way, but it seems lacking insofar as it’s difficult for the player to control. Still hating on everyone who suggests Nzinga as the leader.

Khmer – I don’t feel super strongly about this one but I was legit disappointed that Suryavarman II didn’t reappear in Civ V because the Khmer Empire’s handprints are kinda all over this game. I would be interested in people's concepts for carving out a unique position for them given what we have now.

Inuit – I realize some people think they’re ridiculous, but I’ll stick with them, even if they might seem liable to be shoehorned into a gimmicky role (after Venice, they can’t be the most gimmicky). There’s precedence for mythical leaders, though understandably not much love), but really the main draw is their uniqueness.

 

[phaethon16]

My list, in order:

Ashanti – Y'all know they're my favorites. If you don't know much about them, I'd be happy to make an effort post, but I thought I'd give a preliminary vision of them instead-

My ideas for the Ashanti revolve around the Golden Stool ( see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Golden_Stool ) - I think perhaps incorporated as something like a UA with: “The first work of art created by an Ashanti Great Artist will always be The Golden Stool, which grants an additional (dope bonuses) and provides X production for the city that possesses it.

With a UU Akan/Talking Drummer that buffs the combat ability of units and/or the production of cities in its radius, I can imagine the Ashanti shifting the Golden Stool around in conjunction with a Talking Drummer in order to greatly boost the production of a particular city.

The Golden Stool would have the obvious negative side effect of being a super juicy great work that everyone else in the world is gonna want to take away from them, but as long as it is possessed by the Ashanti will give them great benefits. I just don’t have a good idea for what the values should be yet

Vietnam – I imagine them with strong combat defense and a significant passive bonus to defensive culture, although that feels rather unimaginative. I definitely feel those who are concerned about what an Americo-centric depiction of Vietnam would look like, but the nation’s history is so rich that I have faith in a more robust representation. Trung Trac is completely baller and I gotta be honest, I’d even be cool with both twins serving as co-leaders.

Nubia – I feel like they should be paired up with Egypt in some manner akin to how Assyria and Babylon are. I’m spitballing this, but perhaps something like “Wonders built by you and your allies contribute significantly to your Golden Age meter”. There are probably more interesting ways to interpret their syncretism, the problem comes from significantly differentiating them, which funny enough was/is a problem in reality.

Argentina – If you haven’t checked out Leugi’s “Patria Grande” custom civs, check it out right now:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488283
I dig his latest conception of Argentina and I think Eva Peron and the legacy of Peronism is just too fascinating not to include. I understand the resistance to modern civilizations, but I find Argentina pretty compelling as a nation of immigrants and a producer of great people.

Hungary – It’s time, but seal off Europe after this. For real though, Matthias Corvinus is the kind of leader that drags a less relevant civilization closer to inclusion, so for a nation like Hungary it feels like an easy choice. In terms of the their in-game abilities, I got little of interest, and will defer to those more knowledgeable like AbsintheRed (thanks for the feedback, by the way! I definitely did just forget Phoenicia, which is amazing after all the times Tyrian Purple came up)

Timurids Timur is also that kind of dude, but the Timurids shouldn't be slept on regardless. Their empire also nicely fills up a huge empty spot. I gotta imagine they should be in some ways derivative of the Mongols in order to point to their shared lineage, but they should also have some kind of cultural benefits as well to make clear their differences.

Kongo – I’m starting to cool on Kongo, if just because I see how much their popularity relies on the fact that a lot of people have no idea of any other civilizations on the continent; to that end I don’t see very interesting concepts for them or much beyond “Africa needs more” (which is totally true). Still though, they have some really cool aspects to represent, particularly in terms of cultural syncretism. A UA that turns incoming religious pressure into wealth or gold or something could reflect their turn to Christianity in a cool way, but it seems lacking insofar as it’s difficult for the player to control. Still hating on everyone who suggests Nzinga as the leader.

Khmer – I don’t feel super strongly about this one but I was legit disappointed that Suryavarman II didn’t reappear in Civ V because the Khmer Empire’s handprints are kinda all over this game. I would be interested in people's concepts for carving out a unique position for them given what we have now.

Inuit – I realize some people think they’re ridiculous, but I’ll stick with them, even if they might seem liable to be shoehorned into a gimmicky role (after Venice, they can’t be the most gimmicky). There’s precedence for mythical leaders, though understandably not much love), but really the main draw is their uniqueness.

With the exception of the Timurids, I agree with all the civ choices here.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Vietnam – I imagine them with strong combat defense and a significant passive bonus to defensive culture, although that feels rather unimaginative. I definitely feel those who are concerned about what an Americo-centric depiction of Vietnam would look like, but the nation’s history is so rich that I have faith in a more robust representation. Trung Trac is completely baller and I gotta be honest, I’d even be cool with both twins serving as co-leaders.

They're not twins actually, I think I accidentally said that once while I was relaly sleepy or something.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT... there's nothing stopping the devs from making them like twins if it'd sell more. I'd be all for that.

 

[Iklabain]

From civilization nostalgia, I really miss the Sumerians, who IIRC, haven't been in the franchise since Civ 3. And since everyone seems to want another American-Indian civilization, I'm really surprised that the Hopi are usually excluded from the list.

Umm.... Sumer was In 4 so......

 

[Nujabes]

They're not twins actually, I think I accidentally said that once while I was relaly sleepy or something.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT... there's nothing stopping the devs from making them like twins if it'd sell more. I'd be all for that.

No, that was probably just something I made up in my own head. Luckily it doesn't change anything - Vietnam is still one of the more obvious choices if they decide to add more civs, although I dunno if they'd add both Khmer and Vietnam and the Khmer have the benefit of a previous appearance under their belts.

 

[cybrxkhan]

No, that was probably just something I made up in my own head. Luckily it doesn't change anything - Vietnam is still one of the more obvious choices if they decide to add more civs, although I dunno if they'd add both Khmer and Vietnam and the Khmer have the benefit of a previous appearance under their belts.

Vietnam - very recognizable to US audiences, different compared to other SE Asians (Sinicized instead of Indicized), and TRUNG SISTERS

Khmer - important empire in SE Asia that did awesome things, used in the Civ series before

BOTH - 100% awesome

 

[SnowKomodo]

Vietnam - very recognizable to US audiences, different compared to other SE Asians (Sinicized instead of Indicized), and TRUNG SISTERS

Khmer - important empire in SE Asia that did awesome things, used in the Civ series before

BOTH - 100% awesome

This. I feel like you could have two Southeast Asian civs because of this

Vietnam is practically a Western civ thanks to marketing and large presence of Vietnamese overseas. And even not, their culture 'feels' different enough than your typical SEA civ

While Khmer occupies the traditional definition of "Civilization"

but both are 100% possible together. It's not a case of Indian tribe vs. Indian tribe where you just wouldn't have two

 

[ottobot]

just a note on the map: i notice, finally, that the map is actually pretty complete, everywhere but canada, central asia, argentina, !africa! and australia has some color on it (well there are other white spots but they're small) suprisingly good work, firaxis

 

[phaethon16]

and what are you really going to do about Australia right? The others can be fixed though. Besides the Inuit, what are some other tribes native to Canada?