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

[ldvhl]

Besides the Inuit, what are some other tribes native to Canada?

Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list.

 

[seancolorado]

[xpost from BNW section]

In Southeast Asia, Khmer and Vietnam are the two most popular civs and thus stand the best chance to make it in Civ. But a few people have concerns about Khmer overlapping with Siam while others have concerns about Vietnam not holding a candle to Khmer.

There is one Southeast Asian powerhouse with zero controversy. Instead of lecturing with history, I'll let the photos speak for itself.

Behold, the mighty PAGAN KINGDOM (Burma/Myanmar), one of the great giants to have walked the lands of mainland Asia:

Spoiler :

The legendary Anawrahta, leader of the Pagan

Spoiler :

Map of their geography. As you can see, they dominated in a hotly-contested region:

Spoiler :

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I should have added "other" - for queen Teuta of Illyria. I know, it'll never be done by Firaxis; though as an ancient enemy of Rome, pirating those ancient trade routes, it'd be a great addition in my opinion!

 

[phaethon16]

Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list.

Jeez, that made me dizzy just looking at it. So long! Since I don't have the patience, can you think of any standouts that would make legitimate civs?

 

[Iklabain]

[xpost from BNW section]

In Southeast Asia, Khmer and Vietnam are the two most popular civs and thus stand the best chance to make it in Civ. But a few people have concerns about Khmer overlapping with Siam while others have concerns about Vietnam not holding a candle to Khmer.

There is one Southeast Asian powerhouse with zero controversy. Instead of lecturing with history, I'll let the photos speak for itself.

Behold, the mighty PAGAN KINGDOM (Burma/Myanmar), one of the great giants to have walked the lands of mainland Asia:

Spoiler :

The legendary Anawrahta, leader of the Pagan

Spoiler :

Map of their geography. As you can see, they dominated in a hotly-contested region:

Spoiler :

Pretty Awesome.

 

[InsanelyApple]

[xpost from BNW section]

In Southeast Asia, Khmer and Vietnam are the two most popular civs and thus stand the best chance to make it in Civ. But a few people have concerns about Khmer overlapping with Siam while others have concerns about Vietnam not holding a candle to Khmer.

There is one Southeast Asian powerhouse with zero controversy. Instead of lecturing with history, I'll let the photos speak for itself.

Behold, the mighty PAGAN KINGDOM (Burma/Myanmar), one of the great giants to have walked the lands of mainland Asia:

Spoiler :

That architecture looks like it's from a whole 'nother world. It's so pretty.

 

[phaethon16]

What would Pagan's playing style look like?

 

[Iklabain]

I say either include Pagan/Burma or Vietnam with Khmer. I'm still not sold entirely on Khmer though...

 

[Iklabain]

Does everyone agree that if they included the Timurids... Timur would be the leader?
And the same with Nubia and Tiye

 

[Iklabain]

Here's some representation of Ukraine and how awesome it could be In Civ V,
Just let me show you some pictures.

The Mountains.

Spoiler :

The Architecture.

Spoiler :

And who wouldn't want to have some classic Civ V bad diplomacy with this guy?

Spoiler :

Oh.. and this is pretty cool.

Spoiler :

I'm just sayin'... Ukraine is awesome. One page back I listed some possible game stats for them.

 

[ldvhl]

What would Pagan's playing style look like?

A pre-BNW Pagan civ was listed in the Civs/Leaders thread here.

 

[phaethon16]

Does everyone agree that if they included the Timurids... Timur would be the leader?
And the same with Nubia and Tiye.

Yeah. Nubia is an obvious choice of a civ with a good female leader, and the Timurids existed because of Timur. Does everyone agree that a Vietnam would have one (or both) of the Trung sisters? Lastly, who would lead Kongo?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I say either include Pagan/Burma or Vietnam with Khmer. I'm still not sold entirely on Khmer though...

The Khmer built Angkor Wat, had gigantic irrigation and canal systems (that subsequently collapsed and disappeared after they declined, sadly), and had the largest land empire in mainland SE Asia. Personally I think they're the most deserving out of the SE Asians, and I was a little surprised Siam was included over them when Civ5 first came out.

Their playstyles would probably somehow reflect either the gigantic irrigation systems and the abundant agricultural production based on rather clever techniques, or their religious architecture.

Does everyone agree that if they included the Timurids... Timur would be the leader?
And the same with Nubia and Tiye

Timur is the only leader for the Timurids the same way Attila is for the Huns or Shaka is for the Zulus. Sure, there are other good choices (particularly Ulugh Beg), but there's no reason to have anyone other than the most iconic leader.

As for Nubia however, there's plenty of options. Personally I'm most fond of Piye, but Taharqa, one of the Nubian queens in later history, and some of the 26th dynsasty Pharaohs I don't remember of, they'd all be viable. Frankly most people don't even know them anyways (in contrast to the above example with Timur), so there isn't as much of a clear-cut choice.

Yeah. Nubia is an obvious choice of a civ with a good female leader, and the Timurids existed because of Timur. Does everyone agree that a Vietnam would have one (or both) of the Trung sisters? Lastly, who would lead Kongo?

Trung Sisters would be a good choice, but not the only one for 'Nam. off the top of my head I can think of these other possibilities: QUang Trung (my favorite after the Trung sisters), Le Loi, Ho Chi Minh (ugh), Ngo Quyen, Trieu Thi Thinh (forgot the spelling, she's also a she), Tran Hung Dao, the first Nguyen emperor (forgot his name, my memory is terrible today), An Duong Vuong, and a couple of others I forgot. Trung Sisters, however, would be a good choice if they wanted a female leader. Because they're kewl, too.

 

[Iklabain]

Here's some representation of Ukraine and how awesome it could be In Civ V,
Just let me show you some pictures.

The Mountains.

Spoiler :

The Architecture.

Spoiler :

And who wouldn't want to have some classic Civ V bad diplomacy with this guy?

Spoiler :

Oh.. and this is pretty cool.

Spoiler :

I'm just sayin'... Ukraine is awesome. One page back I listed some possible game stats for them.

Images are not showing up... Hmm....
Just go into the quote interface and copy the URLs from there.

 

[JFD]

Hungary: There's no question as to Hungary's "deservedness." It was a massive Medieval power, of which the game lacks many, and it is a well-known nation today. Off the top of my head, four leaders come straight to mind (Arpad, Stephen I, Louis I and Matthais Corvinus) and I could see a unique UA which encouraged prosperity during wartime (at least if Louis was leader - if the AI weren't so erratic, perhaps Hungary enters a Golden Age every time another civ declares war on them). That said, there is a dual argument against Hungary and her name is Austria, which, given the UU of the Hussar and the leader of Maria Theresa, was designed as Austria-Hungary, and the Huns. Fortunately, it is not a strong argument, as Budapest forwent being an Austrian city and the Hun argument is purely nominative. I'm a big fan of Hungary and I'm confidant it would have a place in civ if there is another expansion.

Phoenicia: I'm not a big fan of ancient civs; their Unique Items come too early and the mystery of their obscure history doesn't quite appeal to me as it does to others. However, Pheonicia is the exception and that is because commercial and naval civs are my bias and on the spot I can't think of any ancient world civ better suited at being an early trade power. I'm not historically versed enough to propose much for Phoenicia, but perhaps they could manage a unique harbour which yielded +1 Phoenician/Tyrian Dye, with some sort of limitation to the number, of course. Alternatively, each International Sea Route could yield Happiness, perhaps. Unfortunately, however, the time for Phoenecia seems to have only just passed.

Nepal: I don't often think of Nepal, but when I do it makes me wish it were in the game. The religious civs in the game are very underwhelming and the original intent of Firaxis with the Pueblo indicate a desire to make use of the otherwise useless mountains. Both of these things Nepal can resolve. Nepal also has the potential for well recognised - at least amongst British audiences - UU - the Gurkha. Simply put, Nepal's strong religious and mountainous bias could provide that which is left wanting by the inability for Firaxis to include Tibet.

Khmer/Vietnam I would like one of these two, but it's difficult to say which is more likely. Vietnam has a distinctive iconicness about it, but I'm not sure how sensitive to this Americans would be, not being an American myself. If this were not a problem, I could see Vietnam as the more likely choice and I could see this civ making use of Vietnam's well-known guerrilla capabilities - not to mention the possibility for a female ruler; and two at once at that. However, I'm not sure a general American audience could get past the idea of modern Vietnam, in the same way people cannot get past modern Israel, and so the Khmer would be a safer inclusion. The Khmer, of course, stand on their own as well - having been in the series before is always a strong argument in favour, but someone such as seancolorado could make a stronger case for them than I.

The Papal States One niche yet unfulfilled is a civ which benefits from not only having its own religion, but by spreading it aggressively. That, I believe, could be best fulfilled by the Papal States and a UA focused on exemplifying the Papacy's anamolous influence over Europe could offer some unique and fun gameplay changes. Perhaps your denunciations (nominally called excommunications) could have deeper repercusions upon civs which share your religion, or civs which share your religion will occassionally gift you things, just as you are expected of by the AI. The possibilities are numerous. A growth encouraging Temple replacement - a Church - and a defensive Swiss Guard could easily round the Papal States out as a successful tall empire. There are, however, a few problems with implementing a civ such as the Papacy, beginning with the issue of the Two Romes and the nominative synonymity with the Catholic Church, which might be viewed, controversially, as discriminatory.

Mexico Brazil's introduction has broken a precedent. I don't think the series is quite ready for Canada or Australia, which simply don't conjure anything particularly romantic to me, but I think Mexico is not far behind Brazil. It's empire may have been shortlived, but it was notorious for its conflicts with the United States. And I'm sure a lot of Americans would just love to relive that. Mexico, like Brazil, is undeniably on the rise in economic
importance and if this factored even for a second in the decision to include Brazil, you can bet Mexico is inevitable. I would like to see the Social Policy system become less arbitrary in the future and the development of the ideology system has begun to accomplish this. If this were to continue, like a potential Vietnam civ, I could see Mexico making use of this. Perhaps a UU with different bonuses depending upon your chosen ideology.

Kongo Simply put, people are clamouring for Kongo over here. I haven't a strong desire for any other civ than what I've listed, so I'm willing to concede to the vocality of the civfanatics who desire Kongo.

 

[seancolorado]

Khmer/Vietnam I would like one of these two, but it's difficult to say which is more likely. Vietnam has a distinctive iconicness about it, but I'm not sure how sensitive to this Americans would be, not being an American myself. If this were not a problem, I could see Vietnam as the more likely choice and I could see this civ making use of Vietnam's well-known guerrilla capabilities - not to mention the possibility for a female ruler; and two at once at that. However, I'm not sure a general American audience could get past the idea of modern Vietnam, in the same way people cannot get past modern Israel, and so the Khmer would be a safer inclusion. The Khmer, of course, stand on their own as well - having been in the series before is always a strong argument in favour, but someone such as seancolorado could make a stronger case for them than I.

Honestly? Khmer and Vietnam have equally strong cases. I think you have to throw in Pagan/Burma as well. The difference then? The types of cases to be made.

Khmer

Pros
-"Largest mainland Southeast Asian civ." (Largest overall goes to Majapahit/Indonesia). Siam is worthy and I admire their power and influence, but you can't help but feel there is a hole in Southeast Asia without Khmer. Imagine having Europe without France. That's what it feels like.
-"One of the largest cities in the world" during its time. Depending on who you ask, some would even say the most active on Earth during its peak
-"Been in Civ many times before", so devs recognize their importance. Been in Civ many times before, so fans are comfortable with them
-"Consistently polls as one of the favorites." This is the biggest reason in favor.

Cons
-"Been in Civ many times before." So devs may consider Burma or Vietnam over them. Weak con, but thought I would throw it in there just for kicks
-"Overlapping too much with Siam." This is not an issue to me at all. The geography, culture, time periods, etc have enough differences where it doesn't matter. Southeast Asia is just as diverse and culturally distinct as all those overlapping Euro civs.

Vietnam

Pros
-"Consistently polls as one of the favorites" - honestly, this reason should be enough. The Vietnamese around CivFanatics, r/civ, and elsewhere have been pushing for their inclusion for so long. It's just the right thing to do.
-"Highly accessible to the Western world." And therefore marketable
-"Double leaderhead." I'm serious about this being a reason. Devs missed out on the opportunity for a 'sexy' and thus marketable leader in Tribhuwana of Indonesia (Gajah Mada is more deserving though, so I'm glad they didn't choose her), but they have a chance to choose the Trung Sisters. Were they told in tales as 'hot'? I don't know, but find me a straight man that doesn't love twins and I'll eat my hat...and shoes...and cat.

Cons
-"Sphere of influence." Let's face it, Vietnam did not have nearly as big of an impact on Southeast Asia as Siam, Indonesia, Khmer or Burma. Ultimately speaking, this is their biggest knock. In past civs games this would mean they have zero chance. However, the direction Civ 5 has gone means they put more of an emphasis on diversity of time and place and culture. You can argue about influence all you want, but you can't put a price or a value on a nation's culture (and therefore history)

Burma

Pros
-"One of the giants of Southeast Asia." Not just Southeast Asia, but one of the great kingdoms the world has ever seen. It's tough to convince with words, which is why I posted those photos earlier in this thread. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
-"Never been included in Civ."
-"Currently, Myanmar is slowly opening up." Provides a unique opportunity for Civ to play along with modern history by opening up the Pagan Kingdom with the video game. Not a true pro, I admit, but an interesting one.

Cons
-"Not well-known." Which really means 'not well-advertised.'
-"Does not poll well." Huge negative, unfortunately, and enough to count them out of the race

Regardless, all three are deserving and I would be happy with any of them. Vietnam should probably have priority, since their fans have been waiting so long. But my personal favorite is Khmer. If Majapahit/Indonesia are the maritime giants, then Khmer are the same for the mainland. I see no reason why both can't be in together.

 

[seancolorado]

Nepal: I don't often think of Nepal, but when I do it makes me wish it were in the game. The religious civs in the game are very underwhelming and the original intent of Firaxis with the Pueblo indicate a desire to make use of the otherwise useless mountains. Both of these things Nepal can resolve. Nepal also has the potential for well recognised - at least amongst British audiences - UU - the Gurkha. Simply put, Nepal's strong religious and mountainous bias could provide that which is left wanting by the inability for Firaxis to include Tibet.

It's clear the fans are hungry for a true mountain civ. None of this Carthage, Inca side-stuff. Now that Pueblo is out, who better than Nepal? Great potential for fun and creative mechanics. Unique natural wonder: Mt Everest. Hehe, jk jk

Kongo Simply put, people are clamouring for Kongo over here. I haven't a strong desire for any other civ than what I've listed, so I'm willing to concede to the vocality of the civfanatics who desire Kongo.

I am clamoring for any Civ to represent that gaping hole in Sub-Saharan Africa. And since Kongo has the most support, I'm gladly hopping on this bandwagon. Of all the civs, this is the one I anticipate has the best chance to make it

 

[JFD]

Honestly? Khmer and Vietnam have equally strong cases.

This is why I deferred to you for presenting a stronger argument and also why I said I didn't know which was more likely.

Both could be in, but not if there was absolutely only 7 spots left (for a round 50), which is the way I see it.

 

[Iklabain]

This is why I deferred to you for presenting a stronger argument and also why I said I didn't know which was more likely.

Both could be in, but not if there was absolutely only 7 spots left (for a round 50), which is the way I see it.

Yeah. If there was another expansion with the 9 new civs then sure... I could see them being In there.
But... If they made some DLC packs to add on 7 and make it 50 then I don't think they will be included.

There are to many other gaps that need to be filled first.

 

[cybrxkhan]

@seancolorado: Good briefing on the big three SE Asian candidates left. They'd all be good and awesome in their own ways, it's unfortunate this civ-choosing business is so zero-sum.