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

[wigwam]

I find it hard to imagine the devs would seriously consider Israel, Tibet, Pueblo again, or even Burma. Without derailing into specifics, too much modern baggage comes into question. Some minor, some major.

Could be wrong though. Hope I am! All fascinating histories

I'm not sure about Burma, but I certainly agree about the other three. And Burma's not even on the poll, alas.

If we exclude Israel, Tibet, and the Pueblo, we get:

Kongo 49
Vietnam 39
Khmer 31
Hungary 25
Sumer 23
(Gran) Colombia 21
Hittites 21
Kush/Nubia 20

Inuit/Khazars/Timurids 19

Not a bad list. It's missing half of my choices, but I'd actually be quite pleased in spite of that, especially if the Khazars made it as #9.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I don't know anything about the Haida or if they are "civ worthy", but I just discovered their art today and it looks...just very cool:

 

[AbsintheRed]

Matthias Corvinus was so interesting. Anybody who hasn't heard of him, strongly suggest looking him up anywhere you can

(Khmer leaders as well. All three that cybrxkhan listed. Amazingly influential individuals)

Agreed on both

Hungarians, who would be the consensus best leader (or at least according to majority of Hungarians)?

Arpad (Árpád): 845-907, lead the hungarians to the Carpathian-basin.
Saint Stephen (I. István): 997-1038, founder of the Hungarian Kingdom, converted Hungary to Christianity.
Bela III (III. Béla): 1172-1196, successor to the Byzantine Empire, but came back to Hungary after the very old emperor had a newborn boy; IMO he was one of the best and most succesful hungarian kings in the Arpad dinasty, altough much less known (even in Hungary) than the other ones in the list
Bela IV (IV. Béla): 1235-1270, was one of the most famous kings of Hungary, he distinguished himself through his policy of strengthening of the royal power following the example of his grandfather Béla III, and by the rebuilding Hungary after the catastrophe of the Mongolian invasion in 1241. For this reason he is called by the Hungarians as "the second founder of our country".
Louis I (I. Nagy Lajos): 1342-1382
Matthias Corvinus (I. Hunyadi Mátyás): 1458-1490

The realms of Louis and Matthias can be seen on this map:
(pink territory is the core kingdom of Hungary for hundreds of years, other coloured territories are close vassals, personal unions and conquests)
(blue border is Louis' realm, pink border is Matthias' realm)

 

[phaethon16]

Matthias Corvinus was so interesting. Anybody who hasn't heard of him, strongly suggest looking him up anywhere you can

(Khmer leaders as well. All three that cybrxkhan listed. Amazingly influential individuals)



Hungarians, who would be the consensus best leader (or at least according to majority of Hungarians)?

I'm not directedly Hungarian, but I grew up in a semi-Hungarian household and I would pick Stephen I. I think either him or Matthias Corvinus is the best choice.

 

[ldvhl]

I don't know anything about the Haida or if they are "civ worthy", but I just discovered their art today and it looks...just very cool:

The Haida are one of the big groups of the Pacific Northwest. Definitely civ-worthy. They have a lot of potential for civ development, even just based on their Wikipedia entry.

 

[Nitram15]

Cool map Absinthe! It would be really nice to make that empire in Civ...

 

[Viregel]

Very much. I know a number of forumites here tend to list Suryvarman II as their default choice for Khmer leader (or at least that's the impression I got), but Jayavarman II and Jayavarman VII would present different visions of the Khmer Empire as well. Whereas Suryvarman II represents its architectural achievements (mainly through Angkor Wat), Jayavarman VII represents its Buddhist side and its imperialistic, militaristic side (what with his military campaigning and all), while Jayavarman II to me is sort of like what George Washington is to the Americans in Civ5 and Cyrus was to the Persians in Civ4 - a "founder" figure who can embody sort of everything that Civ is.

So the Khmer does have some diversity of leaders to choose from. Contrast that with, say, Vietnam, on the other hand - pretty much all those leaders I listed would, if put in game, have mostly the "gtfo of our land or we'll guerilla warfare you to death" aspect to play up (even though a number of them did have other achievements too, of course, but that military defensiveness is still the main thing).

I would stick with Suryvarman II, simply because there are enough warmongers in the game, and the Khmer probably should have the option to play with both a cultural style and also a dominantion option. Vietnam, however, would be an amazing guerrilla warfare style civ. If Firaxis add them, I don't care what they do, as long as it involves killing anyone who dares tread into my territory. Also, as a general question; would Laos make a good civ?

 

[Iklabain]

Despite the modern day problems i still think Israel should be included.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Is Nagy Lajos Władysław Warneńczyk in hungarian? The one who died in Varna Battle?

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_III_Warneńczyk

 

[Nitram15]

Is Nagy Lajos Władysław Warneńczyk in hungarian? The one who died in Varna Battle?

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_III_Warneńczyk

No, that's Ulászló I., from the Jagello-dynasty. Nagy Lajos was from the Anjou-dynasty.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't know anything about the Haida or if they are "civ worthy", but I just discovered their art today and it looks...just very cool:

The Haida were impressive in that they managed to form a proto-urbanized society without proper agriculture. That is, they had permanent settlements while still being hunter-gatherers and fishers.

I would stick with Suryvarman II, simply because there are enough warmongers in the game, and the Khmer probably should have the option to play with both a cultural style and also a dominantion option.

I think Jayavarman II, being a sort of "founder" figure, could offer a non-purely militaristic playstyle. Jayavarman VII could have a focus on the religious and cultural aspects of his reign as well.

That said, though, leaders don't necessarily match up with their UAs per se - Napoleon has a cultural UA, Alexander has a diplomacy UA, Gandhi loves nukes but has a population UA, etc.

Vietnam, however, would be an amazing guerrilla warfare style civ. If Firaxis add them, I don't care what they do, as long as it involves killing anyone who dares tread into my territory.

While there's other things they could have Vietnam focus on (particularly agriculture), I think if Vietnam were in this would be its likely niche, and not one I'd complain about. A while back I heard this anecdote about an American and a North Vietnamese officer who happened to meet somehow during the Vietnam War and strike up a conversation (paraphrased):

American: "We have more and better-trained men, more weapons, more supplies. We're going to win the war."
Vietnamese: "That's irrelevant."

So I could see a UA superficially similar to Ethiopia's - it's best used against stronger opponents.

Or, well, just anyone who steps into their land gets roflstomped by their guerillas.

Also, as a general question; would Laos make a good civ?

Personally I would put Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, and maybe even Champa before Laos. While it no doubt has its unique culture and history, of all the major continental SE Asian states, it was probably the least important.

Despite the modern day problems i still think Israel should be included.

As long as the focus isn't too much on modern Israel, I wouldn't mind. For instance, maybe have a UU and UB from modern Israel and that's it, or none at all - then have the rest of the abilities and stuff from ancient Israel or something that is generically Jewish (like Synagogues or something).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

No, that's Ulászló I., from the Jagello-dynasty. Nagy Lajos was from the Anjou-dynasty.

Ah ok Jadwiga's father Thx

 

[Iklabain]

The Haida are one of the big groups of the Pacific Northwest. Definitely civ-worthy. They have a lot of potential for civ development, even just based on their Wikipedia entry.

Knock off Inuit and replace with Haida people!
The Haida are definitely worthy, I think I found my new favorite!

 

[Iklabain]

As long as the focus isn't too much on modern Israel, I wouldn't mind. For instance, maybe have a UU and UB from modern Israel and that's it, or none at all - then have the rest of the abilities and stuff from ancient Israel or something that is generically Jewish (like Synagogues or something).

Exactly! If they focus more on ancient Israel then there would be no problem.
And I'm fine if they have Synagogue and Maccabees as their uniques (someone suggested this 1 or 2 pages back) as long as they have a very different UA.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Knock off Inuit and replace with Haida people!
The Haida are definitely worthy, I think I found my new favorite!

The Haida are definitely growing on me as well. We have a NA group from the east, one from the center-west, now we need one from the north/even more west, and the Haida fit the bill.

Exactly! If they focus more on ancient Israel then there would be no problem.
And I'm fine if they have Synagogue and Maccabees as their uniques (someone suggested this 1 or 2 pages back) as long as they have a very different UA.

Yeah, I'm not too much a fan of having Israel in the game, but I wouldn't mind as long as there isn't a focus on modern Israel. A Synagogue + Maccabee UB and UU combo is pretty much what I would myself think fits best.

 

[Zipa_DH]

...what about the Chibchas?...someone agree?...

 

[awesome]

My "other" votes are kanem-bornu, Mapuche and Mississippians

 

[Viregel]

Despite the modern day problems i still think Israel should be included.

It would probably be called Hebrew or something, and should focus more on the pre-Israel aspects. Otherwise, it would make a great civ.

 

[Emperor Joker]

My "other" votes are kanem-bornu, Mapuche and Mississippians

The Mississippians would be good, but sadly we barely know anything about them.

 

[Viregel]

The Haida were impressive in that they managed to form a proto-urbanized society without proper agriculture. That is, they had permanent settlements while still being hunter-gatherers and fishers.



I think Jayavarman II, being a sort of "founder" figure, could offer a non-purely militaristic playstyle. Jayavarman VII could have a focus on the religious and cultural aspects of his reign as well.

That said, though, leaders don't necessarily match up with their UAs per se - Napoleon has a cultural UA, Alexander has a diplomacy UA, Gandhi loves nukes but has a population UA, etc.



While there's other things they could have Vietnam focus on (particularly agriculture), I think if Vietnam were in this would be its likely niche, and not one I'd complain about. A while back I heard this anecdote about an American and a North Vietnamese officer who happened to meet somehow during the Vietnam War and strike up a conversation (paraphrased):

American: "We have more and better-trained men, more weapons, more supplies. We're going to win the war."
Vietnamese: "That's irrelevant."

So I could see a UA superficially similar to Ethiopia's - it's best used against stronger opponents.

Or, well, just anyone who steps into their land gets roflstomped by their guerillas.



Personally I would put Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, and maybe even Champa before Laos. While it no doubt has its unique culture and history, of all the major continental SE Asian states, it was probably the least important.

Sorry, I'd forgotten that leaders don't have to be related to their UA, although it is a nice touch when that happens. Vietnam could get a bonus both from agriculture and warfare, particularly a bonus against players with more technologies than them. They probably should get some jungle bonus, and maybe even invisibility to some units in jungle (like Viet Cong Infantry) could be a possible option. I also think that it should reflect the tunnel systems used, but I do not have a clue how. Thanks for the information on Laos