Kongo really does have a fascinating history, so I would rather have Kongo as the African civ. But, I have long wanted two African civs in one expansion, so I don't see why Kongo plus Nubia or the Ashanti can't get it. I think it's cool that there are three entirely legitimate African civs remaining. I have no interest in a Swahili civ though, because they were city-states.
Not all that different from your argument about the Nubians and the Egyptians. I think there are better choices than the Swahili as well, in terms of a unified, coherent states.
The Swahili were important for trading with the Arabs and establishing trade networks into the continent, but they did it individually as city-states. When the Portuguese came, they keeled over and never fully regained their former wealth. Nzinga alone created a unified Ngola and Matamba, allied with the Dutch to drive out the Portuguese, and became renowned throughout Europe. The Swahili were temporarily important, but as CS and don't leave an inspiring legacy, so I would rank them below civs like Kongo/Ngola, Benin, and Nubia. The Swahili simply fit the bill for CS to well to become a civ before any of those.
Not all that different from your argument about the Nubians and the Egyptians. I think there are better choices than the Swahili as well, in terms of a unified, coherent states.
For all the talk of Khmer and Vietnam, CivFanatics seems to know very little about the Kingdom of Pagan (Burma)
They stand toe-to-toe with the great Southeast Asian empires. Just skim through this and you'll see (I know it's wikipedia, but this one actually does a great job at highlighting their might):
I can't think of anybody from that region on CivFanatics, so that might be why we are so quiet when it comes to them. But they really do deserve more publicity.
But to answer your question, I prefer Khmer without a shadow of a doubt. (I still love Vietnam though and would welcome their inclusion with open arms)
For all the talk of Khmer and Vietnam, CivFanatics seems to know very little about the Kingdom of Pagan (Burma)
They stand toe-to-toe with the great Southeast Asian empires. Just skim through this and you'll see (I know it's wikipedia, but this one actually does a great job at highlighting their might):
I can't think of anybody from that region on CivFanatics, so that might be why we are so quiet when it comes to them. But they really do deserve more publicity.
But to answer your question, I prefer Khmer without a shadow of a doubt. (I still love Vietnam though and would welcome their inclusion with open arms)
The inclusion of Pagan/Burma would be a pretty good choice. Perhaps as Burma opens up now it might make an appearance. I certainly wouldn't mind.
As for Khmer vs. Vietnam, if we were to take them in isolation I would prefer the Khmer - frankly their achievements were more impressive than Vietnam. However, if I considered them in the context of the civilizations we already have so far in Civ5, then I would prefer Vietnam, since it's sort of the oddball SE Asian civ for being influenced by China instead of India, so in terms of variety I feel it would make for the most "unique" SE Asian civ so far (I don't like using the word "unique", though, it feels a bit loaded and it's pretty subjective). Plus, Trung sisters. Trung sisters. Trung sisters everywhere.
Disclaimer: Most of you know already, but I'm Vietnamese. That may or may not have influenced my statements above.
The inclusion of Pagan/Burma would be a pretty good choice. Perhaps as Burma opens up now it might make an appearance. I certainly wouldn't mind.
As for Khmer vs. Vietnam, if we were to take them in isolation I would prefer the Khmer - frankly their achievements were more impressive than Vietnam. However, if I considered them in the context of the civilizations we already have so far in Civ5, then I would prefer Vietnam, since it's sort of the oddball SE Asian civ for being influenced by China instead of India, so in terms of variety I feel it would make for the most "unique" SE Asian civ so far (I don't like using the word "unique", though, it feels a bit loaded and it's pretty subjective). Plus, Trung sisters. Trung sisters. Trung sisters everywhere.
Disclaimer: Most of you know already, but I'm Vietnamese. That may or may not have influenced my statements above.
There are dozens of Southeast Asian empires to choose from, so the devs should do it justice by at least having three (I feel like this is a reasonable expectation for a minimum amount us fans could ask for):
-One civ to capture the Western mainland (Siam)
-One civ to capture the Eastern mainland (Vietnam?)
-One civ to capture the vast archipelago (Indonesia)
By having three, you have empires easily distinguishable for the Western market. While three is still not doing the region justice in theory, it is at least doing it justice since it's a Western game
Also, Vietnam is already well-known to the Western market. They could easily sell very well as a DLC/expansion while simultaneously accomplishing what I said above
It's a win-win for both the fans and the developers' pockets (and for people like you and me who take a deep pride in representing Southeast Asia)
I like Vietnam because I was reading about medieval Vietnam, and they were tough as nails. I really admire their independent spirit, and how even though they've mostly been in China's shadow, they come on top of their conflicts. Also the gradual southern expansion is cool, and they'd have some cool gameplay options.
Also, Vietnam is already well-known to the Western market. They could easily sell very well as a DLC/expansion while simultaneously accomplishing what I said above
It's a win-win for both the fans and the developers' pockets (and for people like you and me who take a deep pride in representing Southeast Asia)
Pretty much. If this were in isolation, or if this were, say, base Civ 6 and we had to choose between Khmer and Vietnam, I'd' pick Khmer. But as a potential DLC/expansion civ, I think Vietnam has some clear marketing value as well as some good potential as a turtle civ (or maybe not, if the devs get creative and focus on something else) as phaethon16 suggested.
I prefer the Khmer by a long ways in a vacuum (they're really cool), but I feel as if a lot of what could have distinguished them in Civ5 (a mega-food UI with the barays has been done as the polder, the wat was handed to siam, everybody has elephants) is already taken. Next Civ? Give me the Khmers with the full glory of elephants, barays, great engineers, and glorious architecture. For now, though, I think that Vietnam fills more of a niche.
Also, Vietnam is already well-known to the Western market. They could easily sell very well as a DLC/expansion while simultaneously accomplishing what I said above
It's a win-win for both the fans and the developers' pockets (and for people like you and me who take a deep pride in representing Southeast Asia)
From an historical point of view, I'd largely prefer the Khmer. They had the most populated city in the world (Angkor Thom) during the early 13th century (more than a million). They were also great builders (or immensely used slaves, whatever you like). I realize many people would like to see Viet Nam, and myself I wouldn't, but when I see X european civs, X native tribe, and so on, while knowing that a civ with a GIGANTIC city, millions of people, just pisses me ...
Viet Nam may have the Trung sisters or Trieu Thi Trinh, but let's be honest, although very popular, they revolution wasn't easily finished when the chinese decided to take them seriously. Viet Nam (as a nation) really starts, for me, with the Dai Viet, by the end of the 10th century. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I prefer a lot to have khmer over Viet Nam.
From an historical point of view, I'd largely prefer the Khmer. They had the most populated city in the world (Angkor Thom) during the early 13th century (more than a million). They were also great builders (or immensely used slaves, whatever you like). I realize many people would like to see Viet Nam, and myself I wouldn't, but when I see X european civs, X native tribe, and so on, while knowing that a civ with a GIGANTIC city, millions of people, just pisses me ...
Viet Nam may have the Trung sisters or Trieu Thi Trinh, but let's be honest, although very popular, they revolution wasn't easily finished when the chinese decided to take them seriously. Viet Nam (as a nation) really starts, for me, with the Dai Viet, by the end of the 10th century. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I prefer a lot to have khmer over Viet Nam.
I prefer the Khmer by a long ways in a vacuum (they're really cool), but I feel as if a lot of what could have distinguished them in Civ5 (a mega-food UI with the barays has been done as the polder, the wat was handed to siam, everybody has elephants) is already taken. Next Civ? Give me the Khmers with the full glory of elephants, barays, great engineers, and glorious architecture. For now, though, I think that Vietnam fills more of a niche.
From an historical point of view, I'd largely prefer the Khmer. They had the most populated city in the world (Angkor Thom) during the early 13th century (more than a million). They were also great builders (or immensely used slaves, whatever you like). I realize many people would like to see Viet Nam, and myself I wouldn't, but when I see X european civs, X native tribe, and so on, while knowing that a civ with a GIGANTIC city, millions of people, just pisses me ...
Viet Nam may have the Trung sisters or Trieu Thi Trinh, but let's be honest, although very popular, they revolution wasn't easily finished when the chinese decided to take them seriously. Viet Nam (as a nation) really starts, for me, with the Dai Viet, by the end of the 10th century. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I prefer a lot to have khmer over Viet Nam.
Not offended. I think it's a point many of us agree here - even me, as a Vietnamese - the Khmer had much more impressive achievements compared to Vietnam and would be more "deserving" as a civ. Although I dunno why Vietnam having a later 'start' in history really has to do anything with whether it's deserving, that's sort of irrelevant in my opinion.
The thing is though that civs don't get in necessarily because they're deserving - otherwise the roster of civs would be pretty different. The devs also have to consider marketability, fan support, possible gameplay, leaders, and so on. With the other factors in mind, those besides historical importance and/or influence, I feel like Vietnam has a slight edge over the Khmer as of now - if they were doing a completely new Civ, however, I feel like the Khmer would have the edge over Vietnam.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
